Advertisement

Discretization Requirements: How many Elements per Wavelength are Necessary?

  • Steffen Marburg

Abstract

The commonly applied rule of thumb to use a fixed number of elements per wavelength in linear time–harmonic acoustics is discussed together with the question of using either continuous or discontinuous elements for collocation. Continuous interpolation of the sound pressure has been favored in most applications of boundary element methods for acoustics. Only a few papers are known where discontinuous elements are applied because they guarantee C1 continuity of the geometry at element edges. In these cases, it was assumed that the same number of elements as for continuous elements is required for the same numeric error. Of course this implies a larger degree of freedom. An effect of superconvergence is known for boundary element collocation on discontinuous elements. This effect is observed if the collocation points are located at the zeros of orthogonal functions, e.g. at the zeros of the Legendre polynomials. We start with a review of continuous and discontinuous boundary elements using constant, linear and quadratic interpolation on triangular and quadrilateral elements. Major part of this contribution consists of the investigation of the computational example of a long duct. For that, the numeric solution is compared with the analytic solution of the corresponding one–dimensional problem. Error dependence in terms of frequency, element size and location of nodes on discontinuous elements is reported. It will be shown that the zeros of the Legendre polynomials account for an optimal position of nodes for this problem of interior acoustics. Similar results are observed for triangular elements. It can be seen that the error in the Euclidean norm changes by one or two orders of magnitude if the location of nodes is shifted over the element. The irregular mesh of a sedan cabin compartment accounts for the second example. The optimal choice of node position is confirmed for this example. It is one of the key results of this paper, that discontinuous boundary elements perform more efficiently than continuous ones, in particular for linear elements. This, however, implies that nodes are located at the zeros of orthogonal functions on the element. Furthermore, there is no indication of a similarity to the pollution effect which is known from finite element methods.

Keywords

Boundary Element Boundary Element Method Sound Pressure Legendre Polynomial Collocation Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Araujo FC, Silva KI, Telles JCF (2006) Generic domain decomposition and iterative solvers for 3D BEM problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 68:448–472MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson KE (1997) The Numerical Solution of Integral Equations of the Second Kind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Branski A (1997) Model of an acoustic source with discontinuous optimal elements. Archives of Acoustics 22:383–395Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burton AJ, Miller GF (1971) The application of integral equation methods to the numerical solution of some exterior boundary–value problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 323:201–220MATHADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandler G (1979) Superconvergence of numerical solutions to second kind integral equations. PhD Thesis, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatelin F, Lebbar R (1981) The iterated projection solution for the fredholm integral equation of the second kind. Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series B 22:439–451MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciskowski RD, Brebbia CA (eds) (1991) Boundary Elements in Acoustics. Computational Mechanics Publications and Elsevier Applied Science, Southampton–BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Estorff O von (ed) (2000) Boundary elements in acoustics: Advances and applications. WIT Press, SouthamptonMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Florez WF, Power H (2001) Comparison between continuous and discontinuous boundary elements in the multidomain dual reciprocity method for the solution of the two–dimensional Navier–Stokes equation. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 25:57–69MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hackbusch W (1995) Integral Equations: Theory and Numerical Treatment, Birkhäuser–Verlag, Basel–Boston–BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harari I, Grosh K, Hughes TJR, Malhotra M, Pinsky PM, Stewart JR, Thompson LL (1996) Recent development in finite element methods for structural acoustics. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 3:131–309MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harari I, Hughes TJR (1992) A cost comparison of boundary element and finite element methods for problems of time–harmonic acoustics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 97:77–102MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ihlenburg F (1998) Finite element analysis of acoustic scattering. Springer–Verlag, New YorkMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jerry AJ (1977) The Shannon sampling theorem – it various extensions and applications: A tutorial review. Proceedings of the IEEE 65:1565–1596ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirkup SM (1998) The boundary element method in acoustics. Integrated Sound Software, HeptonstallGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makarov SN, Ochmann M (1998) An iterative solver for the Helmholtz integral equation for high frequency scattering. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:742–750CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manolis GD, Banerjee PK (1986) Conforming versus non–conforming boundary elements in three–dimensional elastostatics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 23:1885–1904MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marburg S (2002) Six elements per wavelength. Is that enough? Journal of Computational Acoustics 10:25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marburg S (2005) Normal modes in external acoustics. Part I: Investigation of the one–dimensional duct problem. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 91:1063–1078Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marburg S, Amini S (2005) Cat’s eye radiation with boundary elements: Comparative study on treatment of irregular frequencies. Journal of Computational Acoustics 13: 21–45MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marburg S, H.–J. Hardtke (1999) A study on the acoustic boundary admittance. Determination, results and consequences. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 23:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marburg S, Schneider S (2003) Influence of element types on numeric error for acoustic boundary elements. Journal of Computational Acoustics 11:363–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marburg S, Schneider S (2003) Performance of iterative solvers for acoustic problems. Part I: Solvers and effect of diagonal preconditioning. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 27:727–750MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer WL, Bell WA, Zinn BT, Stallybrass MP (1978) Boundary Integral Solutions of Three Dimensional Acoustic Radiation Problems. Journal of Sound and Vibration 59:245–262MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Natalini B, Popov V (2007) On the optimal implementation of the boundary element dual reciprocity method–multi domain approach for 3d problems. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 31:275–287CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patterson C, Sheikh (1984) Interelement continuity in the boundary element method. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Topics in Boundary Element Research Vol 1: Basic Principles and Applications. Chapter 6. Springer–Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg–New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rego Silva JJd (1993) Acoustic and elastic wave scattering using boundary elements. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton–BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rego Silva JJd, Wrobel LC, Telles JCF (1993) A new family of continuous/discontinuous three–dimensional boundary elements with application to acoustic wave propagation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 36:1661–1679MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmiechen P (1997) Travelling wave speed coincidence. PhD Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schneider S (2003) Application of fast methods for acoustic scattering and radiation problems. Journal of Computational Acoustics 11:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stroud AH (1971) Approximate calculation of multiple integrals. Prentice–Hall, Englewood CliffsMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tadeu A, Antonio J (2000) Use of constant, linear and quadratic boundary elements in 3d wave diffraction analysis. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 24:131–144MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tadeu AJB, Godinho L, Santos P (2001) Performance of the BEM solution in 3D acoustic wave scattering. Advances in Engineering Software 32:629–639MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Telles JCF (1987) A self–adaptive coordinate transformation for efficient numerical evaluation of general boundary element integrals. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 24:959–973MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsinopoulos SV, Agnantiaris JP, Polyzos D (1999) An advanced boundary element/fast Fourier transform axisymmetric formulation for acoustic radiation and wave scattering problems. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:1517–1526CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu TW (ed) (2000) Boundary element acoustics: Fundamentals and computer codes. WIT Press, SouthamptonMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wu TW, Cheng CYR (2003) Boundary element analysis of reactive mufflers and packed silencers with catalyst converters. Electronic Journal of Boundary Elements 1:218–235MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu TW, Seybert AF, Wan GC (1991) On the numerical implementation of a cauchy principal value integral to insure a unique solution for acoustic radiation and scattering. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90:554–560CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu TW, Wan GC (1992) Numerical modeling of acoustic radiation and scattering from thin bodies using a Cauchy principal integral equation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92:2900–2906CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang XS, Ye TQ, Ge SL (2001) Several problems associated with discontinuous boundary elements. Chinese Journal of Computational Mechanics 18:331–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Marburg
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für FestkörpermechanikTechnische UniversitätDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations